Sunday, April 10, 2016
Bad Old Days Return to Bulgaria?
Bulgarian police have arrested a senior civil servant and his friend for possessing unregistered metal detectors and an unregistered collection of antiquities and coins. While some archaeologists will no doubt applaud, collectors may question whether the real problem is the draconian laws put into place when Bulgaria's ex-Communists (now called Socialists) briefly took back power. In contrast, fair laws like those in the UK encourage responsible metal detecting and recognize the value of collectors in preserving common artifacts of the sort that state museums already hold in abundance. That is a much superior approach to one more reminiscent of the bad old days under Bulgarian Communism that treated collectors as criminals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
But, Mr Tompa, have you not suggested a number of times that Bulgarian authorities "regulate metal detecting" in Bulgaria? (here for example http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/11/my-cpac-comments-any-successful.html).
What is "responsible metal detecting" if it is not respecting the law of the land, no matter who made it? You would not advocate, I hope, in the USA that in their conduct Republicans ignore laws instituted by government led by the Democrats, would you?
So what is it to be for Bulgaria according to Peter Tompa, a law that regulates metal detecting, as now, or one that de-regulates it like in England (and, for the moment, Wales)? I am curious.
Okay, will accept your comments going forward as long as they are reasonably polite.
Yes, Bulgarians should follow their laws, but I think they should be changed to encourage the reporting of finds and so that the state does not keep lots of low value material it can't possibly display or properly care for. Prohibition does not work well, even in police states (which thankfully Bulgaria is no longer).
Hello Peter:
Hahahahah!, Oh Dear, hahaha, Hohohoho! Barford writes:- " What is "responsible metal detecting" if it is not respecting the law of the land, no matter who made it?"
Hohohohoh, that's precisely the point that's been made to him countless times but which he seems incapable of taking on board. I for one have made it many times.
He's appears so dumb (unsurprisingly)that he has to pose the question anyone who believes in democracy can easily answer, yet which seems to have him baffled:-
"So what is it to be for Bulgaria according to Peter Tompa, a law that regulates metal detecting, as now, or one that de-regulates it like in England (and, for the moment, Wales)."
I suggest that this latest recruit to metal detecting ownership (Comrade Barford) familiarises himself with those laws regulating metal detecting ethics. A copy of any one of Dick Stout's informed works on the subject should do the trick.
I'm sure Comrade Barford will find North Korea ideal for his metal detecting hobby? I thank him for bringing a little humour to the debate.
Best regards
John Howland
England
"as long as they were reasonably polite" they always were.
I am afraid that it seems the esteemed author has missed my point. If the Bulgarians HAVE laws to prevent the pillaging of the archaeological record to prevent objects being sold on, in what way could one correlate the call for them to "regulate metal detecting" (more effectively) with the esteemed author's suggestion now that they lift such regulation to allow the pillage? I am sure I am not alone in being curious how one could explain the logic there.
As I am sure this blog's esteemed author is well aware, the CCPIA is not about "recording" (neither is the 1970 UNESCO Convention which it is intended to "implement") but preventing "pillage" (taking in general). That is the precise word used in the US legislation, is it not?
Is the US legislation intended to help countries with which it collaborates STOP pillage by artefact hunters, or not? How would deregulating metal detecting lead to that?
As I am sure the esteemed author of this blog is well aware, even when there is no "prohibition" (as in the UK), illegal artefact hunting and collecting continue to be a problem big enough for it to be discussed in a conference which took place (as I am sure Cultural Property Observer is well aware) this very day. The example to which you refer shows quite clearly that liberal approaches to artefact hunting are not the answer. They make it obvious that what is needed is closer regulation of and greater transparency and accountability within the market for the products of artefact hunting. Is that not the case?
I'm sure we could go back over old comments and find the same back and forth. You assume the State should control everything, I don't. The U.K. Has a great system that recognizes all interests, including landowner's and finder's rights. It's a compromise and the fact that there are some bad actors does not change the fact that we know lots more about ancient coin finds in Britain and Wales than anywhere else because of it. That's good enough for me.
Peter, disappointed that you allowed comments from Mr. Barford. Given his online history and his continuing hatred for collectors, he will never lend anything of value to your discussions.
It is however your blog....
Mr Tompa, leaving aside the crude attempts above to deflect attention away from the topic of discussion here, this blog's esteemed author and I seem to be talking at cross purposes. As I said, we are of course discussing here the MOUs written as part of the process regulated by the CCPIA.
In the case of Bulgaria (and other countries, Cyprus comes notably to mind), in their efforts to reduce pillaging of cultural property, you are undeniably on record as stating that instead of the state authorities requesting that a market country like the United States help (sic) stop smuggled artefacts pass through their borders, they should "regulate metal detecting" within their country. It has several times been your clear recommendation to the CPAC on behalf of the dealers and collectors you represent. Your notion of "regulating" metal detecting clearly implies the Bulgarian state more closely control artefact hunting with metal detectors than it did at the time the you were writing and thereby reducing the amounts of material removed ('pillaged'). Is that not the case?
Of course there is nothing in the wording (or intent) of the CCPIA showing it was enacted to govern how a foreign sovereign state collect material for their museums or collect information about archaeological finds, it has the narrow and specific purpose of creating a basis for the US to help deal with the issue of pillaged material once it has left the source country. Nothing else. The CCPIA clearly has the fundamental character of a legislative act respecting and upholding the sovereign rights of the foreign partner countries, in line with the stated purpose of the Convention it implements.
So, I am interested, despite what you earlier said, on reflection, do you think that metal detecting in Bulgaria should be more regulated than it is now, or less, and is that your personal opinion or that as a lobbyist for the coin trade? Thanks.
Hi Peter:
I must for once disagree with Dick Stout and I guess it'll cost me a Bourbon or three at our next meeting.
Barford is to my mind a valuable asset, if only to show the wider world that people of his ilk who'd revive the Workers Utopia and the Berlin Wall - provided they run the show - are trapped in some kind of outdated time-warp.
These Flat Earthers who huff and puff trying to revive the corpse of communism with the Kiss of Life, deserve an audience; not too much exposure though, but just enough to raise the occasional, sympathetic, condescending smile.
Best
John Howland
England
Mr. Barford, if you want to be accurate I said in the Bulgarian MOU hearing, that yes metal detecting should be regulated before an MOU, but the best form of regulation was that as practiced under the Treasure Act and PAS. Yes, despite your views otherwise, that is regulation in that the Treasure Act is mandatory.
And yes John, Mr. Barford just made clear in a recent post about metal detecting in Poland that he supports a world where the State owns all antiquities, which, of course, is a view of unreconstructed Communists, not those who love freedom. Hopefully, Poland's new government will get around to changing current law.
"the best form of regulation was that as practiced under the Treasure Act and PAS" Again we seem to be talking at cross purposes. It is unclear what you mean by the use of teh verb "regulate" when used in relation to "metal detecting", you are perhaps not referring to the use of metal detectors on archaeological sites, but what happens to the objects removed. That is like saying you are "regulating hunting" by stipulating that the dead meat should be placed in a freezer within a certain period.
Obviously, neither the Treasure Act nor the PAS (sic) regulate the removal of material from the archaeological record by metal detecting. The one refers to mandatory reporting once something has already been removed from the earth, the other regulates nothing at all. How does that stop sites being pillaged (mined) for collectables without method or record?
As for the TA, it is widely recognized that there will be much of importance in the sites despoiled by collectors beside the loose gold and silver objects, Vindolanda tablets, so-called Crosby Garrett helmet, the Dartmoor Whitehorse Hill burial group, the Must Farm finds etc etc, none of which are of gold and some of which will be destroyed if dug through to find the metal or incorrectly recovered by amateur finders.
Laws like those of EU countries such as Poland, France, Bulgaria, Spain etc regulate the pillage of archaeological sites by artefact hunters with metal detectors. The TA does not.
Hello Peter:
You are quite correct. Artefact and coin collecting are probably two of the most wholesome and agreeable hobbies or pastimes in existence and of course highly educational. The massive amount of data supplied by detectorists working with the Portable Antiquities Scheme is probably one of the greatest legislative successes of recent times here in the UK. It ought to serve as a model for all countries.
However, Archaeological sites in the UK are well protected by virtue of the Ancient Monuments & Archaeological Areas Act which along with the well-thought Treasure Act ensures 'treasures' that are uncovered by amateurs are dealt with sensibly and equitably.
These two Acts are perfect models for other aspects of legislation to learn from and a good example of this would be the tighter regulation of language schools across the European Community to prevent unlicensed, unqualified 'cowboy' teachers and other shysters from duping unsuspecting students.
Best
John Howland
UK
I see from the above that Transatlantic notions of "politeness" (see your remark above) are applied in a manner which is both relative and discriminatory.
There are a whole load of regulations in the UK which Mr Howland omits, CSS, SSSIs and so on. The system is hardly a homogeneous or even transparent one. Certainly, the Ancient Monuments & Archaeological Areas Act only refers to part of the UK (Northern Ireland has its own legislation) and does not protect places such as the findspot of the so-called Crosby Garrett Helmet, or the immediate environs of the Staffordshire Hoard. Nor did it (as opposed to other legislation) protect the Newark Torc site. It does not protect any of the archaeological context of a single one of the gold and silver finds removed 'blind' from undisturbed archaeological deposits below the ploughsoil on hundreds of sites pillaged for profit by reward-taking Treasure Hunters.
I think the degree of protection from pillage offered by the British legislation is being considerably over-estimated here by Mr Howland, let us recall the Icklingham Bronzes still scandalously in a US private collection despite heir known origins and history. But then The US has no MOU with Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has it?
But of course that is what we are discussing, the US legislation and the notion that it is somehow the automatic prerogative of the US to dictate to the rest of us how we "should" protect our own past. I wonder by what right they feel they are entitled to tell us what to do? In what other areas would Mr Howland welcome seeing the United States of America attempt to interfere with the legislative system in his or any other country?
The topic here is, surely, not "language schools" (sic) but the regulation of the use of metal detectors to search for historical artefacts. Despite what the esteemed author of this blog intimated in his presentation to the CPAC, as we can see, the Bulgarians already have a law which regulates metal detecting. I do not see why suggesting that Bulgaria "regulates metal detecting" should imply changing that law at US instigation. Registering metal detectors and registering artefact collections made with them (see the text above) is self evidently a far more rigorous manner of counteracting on pillage (the stated aim of the CCPIA) than the lackadaisical system of England and (for the moment Wales).
Not sure how this blog became about the CPIA and CPAC. Way off topic.
Hello Peter:
I see Barford still deals in fantasy, propaganda, and innacuracy, as opposed to facts. Note the lack of statistical back-up for his ludicrous claims.
Here's a prime example of a Barfordism (see his comment April 14, 2016 at 10:06 PM) It's a beaut:-
"...gold and silver finds removed 'blind' from undisturbed archaeological deposits below the ploughsoil on hundreds of sites pillaged for profit by reward-taking Treasure Hunters."
What nonsense then, from a man who claims to be a follower of archaeology; a calling where facts and accurate data are paramount. Currently and judging from Barford's wild assertions, Britain's detecting community are streets ahead of him and the UK's Portable Antiquities Scheme proves their proficiency, dedication and contributions to archaeological knowledge.
Best
John Howland
UK
Post a Comment